Reply With Quote
That seems to be the only thing the fossil finders in this topic can do, anything to keep from showing us proof we came from a fish.
here is some jerk off material for the Evolutionist of this topic.
That seems to be the only thing the fossil finders in this topic can do, anything to keep from showing us proof we came from a fish.
The mechanism shouldn't matter in this general sense. Unless you want to claim plasmid transfer is separate from what god has intended.
That seems to be the only thing the fossil finders in this topic can do, anything to keep from showing us proof we came from a fish.
I enjoyed going through that website. Haven't laughed like that in a while.
I'm still waiting for the theory that will supposedly replace evolution. Are we going with "nameless creator" did it? And if so, where's the evidence for this creator?
???
It's highly significant in that 'changed' genes have to overcome more obstacles for them to be passed on to subsequent generations. First off, all mutations get passed along during the replication process of asexual organisms... the full genome is replicated, mutations and all.
This is not the case for meiosis in the production of gametes; meiosis has many more proofreading steps than mitosis, and more often than not mutated genes are spliced off from the resulting haploid cells - not included. The type of mutagenesis that is most frequently incurred during meiosis stem from polymerase slippage errors that are generated while the DNA strand is replicated. But even these are rare occuring once every 10^18 base pairs. Anyhow the increase in fidelity when comparing meiosis vs. mitosis dramatically decreases the chance that mutations are transmitted to the next generation.
Moreover the production of viable zygotes from haploid cells that carry incompatible genetic code, or deleterious mutations, has been do ented ad nauseum as being difficult (but not impossible) to achieve. Finally, if all those hurdles have been surpassed, sexual reproduction has one final filtration gate that once again reduces the probability that a mutated gamete produces viable offspring. That is, the majority of gametes fail to fertilize altogether. Consider the case of most mammals where a reproductive act is quantified by the release of a billion plus sperm and a only a handful (or solely one) ovum. It's a numbers game that radically changes the impact of mutagenesis in asexual populations vs. that in sexually reproduced populations.
It matters.
Last edited by Phenomanul; 10-29-2009 at 02:21 PM.
There is much evidence for the design and order found in creation that simply cannot be purported to chance processes alone... Purpose abounds in Creation...
But unfortunately scientific evidence of a Supreme Being lies beyond the grasp of the scientific toolset wishing to measure/quantify his existence.
I know that this observation simply isn't good enough for some people... but this is the reason why the debate rages on.
BTW congratulations on the birth of your son.
Last edited by Phenomanul; 10-29-2009 at 02:24 PM.
Evolution. Believers "big bang theory".
Thanks Phenom. I'm not a big fan of the God in the Gaps theory. Our lack of understanding to determine how an organism developed does not necessarily mean one was designed.
As well, a creator certainly could have designed the basic building block (say, DNA, or life in general) and yet evolution could have occurred.
Last edited by LnGrrrR; 10-29-2009 at 04:52 PM.
Do you really have to ask everyday you wake up?
where's the evidence for this creator?
I have to hand it you you brah you got this personality disorder thing down packed!
Your Mr. hard ass evolutionist in the politics forum.
And Mr. Mom in the Club!
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137730
Finally something we can agree on, 25 million years later and it's still like looking in the mirror.
So... believing that evolution is real means you're a "hard-ass"? You're an idiot Mouse.
I have to hand it you you brah you got this personality disorder thing down packed!
Your Mr. hard ass evolutionist in the politics forum.
And Mr. Mom in the Club!
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137730
Edit: And the phrase is down pat, not down packed. Idiot.
I do apologize if I am not familiar with words i don't use everyday. maybe I am an idiot, maybe I am all what you say, But at least i don't deny creation in one forum and exploit it in another. To bad you have to go through life never saying you love your child, that would mean you have a soul and it goes against your tadpole to chimp theories. or at least when your acting like an Atheist. I wonder if you are part of other forums like the Nazi revolution and Jews for Jesus.
you have been exposed as a fraud. And I hope your little fish creature grows up with more intelligence then it's misguided sperm donor of a father.
Evolutionist, Can’t Overcome the Issue of Morality
http://www.eons.com/blogs/entry/1478...of-Morality#at
I wonder...
Did God evolve, or was he created?
Atheists can love. You're a moron.
You show your man love every day. I wonder If Darwin loves back?
Top 10 reasons Atheists fail at life
J10) They take their lack of belief in a god and make it into a religion.
9) They ironically do what they scorn Christians for doing: shoving their beliefs down the throats of the general public.
8) They aren't famous for being advocates of civil liberty, ethics, and human rights.
7) Atheists aren't happy unless they can make the religious unhappy.
6) Atheists like to ignore scientific evidence pointing to a god in favor of believing we evolved from monkeys. Granted, some atheists act like monkeys.
5) The vast majority of biologists, chemists, and physicists are Christian.
4) Evidence in molecular biochemistry points out a hole in the evolution theory: how did this single cell organism reproduce?
3) There are more Christian charities than atheist charities, by far.
2) Christians actively serve their communities through community services such as food drives, blood drives, town clean ups, among others. Atheists actively serve themselves.
1) With them, everything, no matter how irrelevant, revolves around there not being a god. What's 2+2? God doesn't exist. Read any good books lately? God doesn't exist. The Civil War fascinates me. Stop cramming your beliefs down my throat! God doesn't exist! For people who don't believe in a god, they sure spend a lot of time talking out him.
Wonderful! Perhaps you'd share what religious practices bind atheists.
Freedom of speech! Woohoo!
Due to the numbers, it would necessarily make sense that not many atheists are famous for certain things. Given that professing lack of belief in a creator wasn't very good for your career, the above shouldn't be surprising.
Of course, then there are the polls showing that atheists are most opposed to things like torture, whereas Christians are most accepting. But hey, no need to pay attention to things like that.
You're an idiot.
Why don't you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Proof?
What does that have to do with being an atheist?
Matthew 6: 5-6
5And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
6But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.We talk about religion because there are idiot believers like you out there who think atheists are evil/stupid/greedy etc etc.Matthew 6: 5-6
5And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
6But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
Are you arguing that bacterial evolution is ok to believe in because there are less proof-reading mechanisms?
LnGrrrR is on Fire!
This thread should of ended with the 11th post, the one above.
Instead, I will extend it with this.
Evolution and geological timescales are perfectly compatible with religion. In Hinduism a day of the brahma is some 4.3 billion years. Buddhism does not even address the issue as such things are pointless in the quest of enlightenment and cannot be answered. Jainism and Sikhism also have compatible views.
As a matter of fact, it seems the bible is in the minority when it comes to these things. A book written by man mind you. I also find it silly that people literally interpret the bible, yet ignore all the rape/incest/stoning/slavery/morally deplorable acts that occur in the bible with no punishment from God. There is a reason the only stories read to children is creation and a tiny part of exodus, the rest is morally offensive. The Isrealites are regularly threatened with total annihilation and are devastated several times by their god.
It is actually amazing that anyone gives the christian literalists a place to "debate" in when the scripture as interpreted is as inane as Scientology's. The ethnocentrism is also amazing. There are, in fact, other religions than Biblical Christianity or Judaism.
Also, I'm not atheist or agnostic and accept geology and cosmology as fact. Now isn't that crazy.
Do you oversimplify everything to this level?
I expounded on the differences between the two replicative processes and why asexual organisms adapt more frequently than those that reproduce sexually.
Evolution is definitely plausible for both processes (but yet to be conclusively be proven for either). Proving the theory for sexual organisms, however, will require the use of sexual organisms, not an overarching extrapolation from an incompatible data set.
Is that a no?
You also left out time it takes to replicate.I expounded on the differences between the two replicative processes and why asexual organisms adapt more frequently than those that reproduce sexually.
What would call antibiotic resistance then? I'm assuming you have a different term for it.Evolution is definitely plausible for both processes (but yet to be conclusively be proven for either).
We'll never prove the theory. It has something to do with what I mentioned above. (hint: time)Proving the theory for sexual organisms, however, will require the use of sexual organisms, not an overarching extrapolation from an incompatible data set.
I didn't leave it out... that part is painfully obvious, but not a showstopper.
A process called adaptation. Otherwise every single base-pair mutation would qualify the organism as a different species which is simply not the case.
There are ways around that in a lab. Needless to say, two separate data sets are required to prove the theory in both classes of organisms and conclusions drawn from each set should remain separate even when most would prefer to ignore the reasons why that would be required.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
